Mike:

What the heck are you referring to as DRM? DRM or "Digital Rights
Management" is a form of copyright protection and should be avoided at
ALL costs.

DRM has nothing to do with amateurs running webcams via radio. Unless
you are afraid someone is going to steal your video!

John

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
news
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:

From: John Smith on Jul 2, 1:24 am


Even worse, it is the stubborn, hidebound, refusal to break
out of the antiquated standards and practices of pre-WW2
times to meld with the rest of the world of modern times.


That's surely no worse than your stubborn, hidebound efforts to
change regulations in something in which you are not remotely
involved. Try a mind meld on that, old timer

The only "code" allowed by these dino-denizens of the past
is MORSE code. Anything else, such as (horrors) "source code"
is nothing but a bunch of NOPs with an occasional HCF. Those
that have bought into it and passed the morse test will do
more flaunting of their morsemanship than a convention of
actors in Hollywood bragging of their credits. [they have
no Variety]


What is any of this to you? You aren't a part of amateur radio.
You've made no effort to become a radio amateur. You're simply
some geezer sitting on the sidelines and shouting, "You're doing it
all wrong".
You've become a regular Rodney Dangerfield--except that you aren't
intentionally funny.

Using "examples" of half-GigaByte files "expected to be sent
over little teeny narrowbanded enclaves of spectrum is itself
an example of their non-thinking, non-research, non-educated
attempts to stall any sort of progress. They can't do the
numbers (despite flaunting of non-amateur titles), won't
bother with looking up things, everything-is-just-fine-as-
when-they-first-joined-long-ago-thankyouverymuch.

Case in point: DRM (Digital Radio Mondial). Digitized audio
on HF, now being transmitted (over two dozen programs now
listed), capable of overcoming the selective fading common
to the "wow" heard so many times on analog BC, tested for over
four years on HF. High-quality audio fitting within a 12 KHz
bandwidth, an occupancy no greater than present-day audio on
broadcast. DRM may not be the technical best, but it IS a
WORKING system. It works on LF, MF, HF, VHF. By test.


It sure does. Ten-Tec's has marketed a pretty nice general
coverage receiver which incorporates Radio Mondial capability for
several years.
It requires a PC to work. That pretty well eliminates portability.
Radio Mondial isn't going to be something which catches on in the
third world where price, battery power and portability are prime
requirements.
I think it is likely to be accepted in the U.S. about as much as AM
stereo and 8-track tapes.

How'd we get to DRM for voice? Weren't we talking about images and
video? A bit of difference there maybe?


A few years ago in here a bunch of narrowband, narrowthinker
olde-fahrts exclaimed and exclaimed that "it won't work!"
They did? Name them.

Probably because someone made some claim that was a bit beyond
capabilities, and then clever people shifted the argument, just like
what is going on here. So now we have some of us being Luddites
regarding digital image transmission on HF because of DRM FM-like
audio.

Which would be scaled down to that 2.5 KHz bandwidth.

How we be gonna scale those pictures and live video to fit into 2.5
KHz?


The general idea of DRM, scaled for 2.5 KHz voice-only audio
bandwidths is eminently possible on HF.

Of course.


Sure it is. The problem is, what works well for many people tuning
into a broadcast just falls apart when a number of people call one
station or when a group of stations desires to converse
roundtable-style.

Yes. The entire nature of HF operations would change drastically.


Effects of selective
fading on HF will be less than the wider bandwidth of broadcast
audio. Further, since it already IS in digital form, it is
applicable to direct-sequence spreading and the ability to put
many signals on a given band without any mutual interference.
The narrowband, narrowthink amateurs will have none of that.
They will yank out the "12 KHz bandwidth" of DRM and shout it
is way too broad for amateur use...while they totally ignore
the scaling that can (and sometimes is) done for narrower band
audio.


The scaling isn't the problem, wizened one.

For video and images it is.




The narrowband, narrowthink status quo-ists will demand
"already-
done, tested, approved, on-the-market" products to
"demonstrate"
that it will work. [they have in the past in here] :-) In
other words, "don't bother me until I see the ads in QST" kind
of mentality which seems to have become standard on the USA
amateur scene. The narrowband, narrowthink hams are content
with their narrow slices of spectrum, the bands appropriately
sliced up into "bandplan" segments like separator boards in a
sandbox. They have achieved Titles in their federal authority
and haughtily parade that to play in the "nicer" parts of the
sandbox.


You can worry about the nicer parts of the sandbox when you've come
up with a pass to enter the park.

Okay, so it looks like someone is now trying to shift the argument
into something like we have to fight to get more spectrum so that we
can use methods that use more bandwidth.

I thought that we were going to be able to send live video and
digital images on HF?

Simply by hooking our computers to our rigs via the proper
interfaces.

Now it seems that the *idea* is that we are going to use DRM, and
we're going to need to get more spectrum in which to use.

IOW, it can't be done (practically) under the present circumstances.

Some of the other folks who would have to give up their spectrum
might have something to say about it also! 8^)


Analog-ONLY is the cry of the narrowband narrowthink group.
Keep it SIMPLE so that the most theory they need is just
Ohm's Law of Resistance. The have resistance to anything more
complex. Stay with the gamesmanship, enter the contests for
"radiosport" and win nice certificates (suitable for framing).
Forget the exploring of the new, trying out something
different.
Too HARD to think. Follow preset rules and fill in the blanks.
Big Brother in the NE will protect them.


Does complex and newer equal better?

Is analog simpler than digital?

Does having a computer that attaches to the Internet make a person a
digital expert?

I ask for enlightenment, I get invective. Appears to be what there
is to offer.

- Mike KB3EIA -